The Celebration of What We Believe

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Happy Easter! God bless you all.

Advertisements

A Good Friday Anthem

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you,

because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.

If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;
if we endure, we shall also reign with him.

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you,
because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.


~ Good Friday Anthem 2, from The Book of Common Prayer

Liberty on the Fringes of Jane’s Books

Oscar writes:

Freedom – more correctly, liberty – is not the ability to do whatever one wants, which is what most people today think it is.

The ability to do whatever one wants is not liberty, it’s hedonism. Hedonism is what “liberals” want. They don’t actually want liberty.

Liberty is the ability to govern oneself. The implication being that one who does not govern himself must be governed by others.

To paraphrase Federalist 55, when men possess insufficient virtue to govern themselves, nothing short of the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Questions:

  1. Who decides what is virtue? Who really decides–leaving some alone but punishing others–whether or not a man governs himself? Whoever that person is, he is the authority under which the others live. Christians should not believe that the answer is only “God”. Our scriptures tell us that we are to obey not only God, but several authorities who He has given the mission to rule.
  2. What does the author of Federalist 55 mean by govern except to be under control; under authority? Does he think destroyers and devourers are not making their own choices?

What Oscar calls Liberty just is Authority; the permission to act within certain boundaries of responsibility. Liberty is the bit within the boundaries. Most of the world is outside those boundaries.

We can test this. Pick up one copy of each of the 77 Jane’s Information Group books. (Here is a list.) Separate them into two piles: one pile with the things an adult American citizen with no criminal history but without special licenses is allowed to own and use. Put the rest in another pile of the those which are forbidden him without special license. Those piles will contain 0 books, and 77 books, respectively.

Ok, now take those books, and tear out the pages. (This will take some time. There will be a lot of them.) Separate those pages into piles according to the same criteria. This will now put some pages in the Allowed pile, but the vast majority will be in the Forbidden pile.

Those piles constitute what is meant by: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

When I point out that what we want is Authoritarianism, there’s no reason for clear observers and thinkers to be scared. It’s what we have right now. We lie about it because we have been taught by Liberals to be afraid of it. But lying is utterly corrosive, and not at all manly or godly.

It gets even better: Liberals are afraid of it! Things that Liberals are afraid of should be go-to weapons.

CoE III: The Opposite of Liberal was a Dirty Word to Me

Conservative is what I used to call myself, and then again later. But conservative isn’t the opposite of liberal. It’s just a descriptor of the kind of liberal who is sentimental and unprincipled.

Between those times “Libertarian” seemed like a good thing. It wasn’t. Potheads, usurers, sodomites, and a boatload of layabouts make terrible company, and worse government. For awhile now I’ve politically been ____________. “Something the opposite of Liberal.”

I’m not the only one. Do you ever wonder why many who are against Post-Modernism, Feminism, Cultural Marxism, Progressivism, Perversion, etc. call themselves and others who defiantly speak the truth: Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Revolutionaries, Barbarians, Deplorables, and even Shitlords?

Ever wonder why, at just the moment they should coalesce into a group, they instead disperse into atomized bits of powerless snark?

Because they hate the opposite of Liberal, the word itself. That word is authoritarian. Nasty thing! We hates it, my precccccioussss!

Well, Cane: Get over it, cupcake.

Dreamers of Undocumented Sex Workers

Some people seem to be under the delusion that calling a child born out of wedlock a bastard is “shaming language”. Those people don’t know what shaming language is: It’s a type of propaganda that is meant to manipulate. What I propose is the radical idea that we STOP using propaganda and return to truth.

I am reminded of the divide between those who say illegal alien and those who say undocumented worker, or Dreamer, or any other manipulative except the plain truth that the person in reference is 1) an outsider 2) here illegally.

A Primer of Practical Application

Regular posts will resume shortly. In the meantime, I wanted to recommend this essay by James Kalb at SydneyTrads, “Dissolving the Black Hole of Modernity“. It’s good.

I’m not sure of the author’s mind on this point, but I notice that the implicit audience for the essay is men, and not people. Something to ponder.

Stop Being Distracted

Taken (only slightly edited) from several comments on Dalrock’s post, “First They Came for the Bald Men”.


The movement of which Antifa, commies, Democrats, etc. all belong isn’t anymore essentially Left than its opponents are Nazis. The essence of the movement to which these groups belong–what they have in common–is a hatred of three things:

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

The order of hatred depends on with which faction of the movement one deals, but the three are essential. For example: Feminism hates men first, then Christianity, then whites. Black Lives Matter orders it Whites, Christianity, then men, I think. Sometimes, as in the case of Antifa, more than one plank is of equal weight. Antifa hates America as a whole because it recognizes that America is fundamentally a work of white Christian men.

It’s not autonomous vs. totalitarian, nor is it globalists vs. nationalists, nor is it politically correct speech vs. free speech. They are not FOR anything in particular. They exist to be AGAINST things. Specifically, they are against

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

Some are fine–and even for–capitalism in China, India, wherever–as long as the benefits are not for Christian white men. They love to welcome Muslim mid-easterners, but the Christian mid-easterners are served right to be killed and exiled. There is no rhyme or reason to these affiliated groups except what they are against. Leftism has nothing to do with this movement.

They don’t know or care what Left means.
They don’t know or care what Nazi means.
They don’t know or care what Globalism means.
They don’t know or care what Right means.
They don’t know or care what Fascist means.
They don’t know or care what Nationalism means.
They don’t know or care what Communist means.

The words, to them, contain no meaning whatsoever. Those things are just words that dead white oppressors made up to separate the real people of color from each other and their belongings. They appropriate and use these terms as various forms of subversive weaponry: dog whistles, cloaks, and diversions.

Most people, people who describe themselves as Conservative, or even merely “normal” just don’t accept what they actually see. And the self-styled Conservative press are trained to look for ideological underpinnings and try to perceive the “end game”. There aren’t any. It’s just envy and hatred. The average American refuses to believe that and so they theorize imaginary ideologies and end games for BLM, Antifa, Feminists, and so forth.

Envy and hate aren’t ideological points. They are of the spiritual realm. It’s a spiritual war; not an ideological war, nor an ethnic war.

Go to the Mattresses, Female Edition

New commenter Joe was kind enough to drop some hilarious history here which does not speak well for the shield maiden trope.

During the late stages of the [American Civil] War, the town of LaGrange, Georgia, had an armed all-female militia unit which drilled with weapons and which mustered in the street apparently ready to fight when the Federals arrived. The Yank in command, a gentleman and a diplomat, sent a messenger under a white flag to tell them that their homes would not be burned and that (as I recall) “they could surely do more damage with their eyes than with their old squirrel-rifles”.) Reassured, they stood down. LaGrange was not burned, but in a touch suitable for the worst of novels, the Federal in command later married one of the members of the “Nancy Harts” girl militia unit.

Otherwise: They would have been slaughtered. The Union force was strong enough that the Confederate cavalry fled them; according to a link provided by Dalrock.

In mid-April 1865 Major General James H. Wilson led a Union raid on west Georgia. As the Union troops approached LaGrange from West Point, the local Confederate cavalrymen fled, and the Nancy Harts stepped in to protect the town.

…which was accomplished by entreating the Union soldiers to spare the town, and then surrendering to the strong handsome Union soldiers; even unto the mattress.

He Put Her Boots on Like Any Other Man

Oscar left a link to an article about a Wyoming homesteader named Elinor Pruitt Stewart. She is presented as an American heroine, but turns out to be more of a fantasy. Here’s the short version:

Elinor was born after the last Comanches had been sent to reservation. By her adulthood, the American West had been tamed, but not yet settled. After divorcing her first husband of three years she moved to Wyoming and took a job as a housekeeper. Then she married her boss. He built an add-on to his house so that she could live in it and pretend to be an independent homesteader. This pretension went on for years, as she hid the fact that she had married her boss, and that his family controlled “her” homestead; even after Atlantic Monthly began to publish her accounts. For years readers of her letter accounts were misled to believe she was single instead of married and supported by a husband and his family. According to those who published her letters: The greatest (conscious) threat to Stewart were coyotes; which are skittish creatures. 

She didn’t own her homestead. She didn’t build her house. She didn’t depend on herself. She didn’t fight off anyone or anything. She told lies that she homesteaded independently.

I will continue research, so please point me towards more historical books and articles.

To Hit Attraction Class 0

There is a connection between the sportsball and RPG surveys, and the law of female attraction. I titled it as The First Law, but the respect of men[1] is so important to attracting females that a man could consider it the only factor and still improve his available pool of women in ways which he could not by focusing on his other attributes.

Sportsball–particularly team versions of sportsball–teach a man how to operate in a social performance context. That’s obvious. But it also teaches him the importance of respecting his teammates. It also confers on him some of the overall respect given to the team. That respect is not zero-sum.[2] A quarterback does not get 80% of the respect while the other 20% is divided among the other players. The distribution of respect is not equal either: Each player does not get the same amount of the team’s overall respect. I could describe the distribution of respect in a few different ways. Keep in mind this is to describe a dynamic; not to define it.

Imagine a simple 1-10 scale of respect. Let’s further imagine a football team with an overall respect (GR) of 8. The quarterback is conferred a personal respect (PR) of 4 when viewed in isolation, e.g., walking around in a crowd while no one has any idea who he is. If he is recognized as the quarterback though–because of the effect of being on a team with a respect of 8–he gets 5 additional points for a total of 9 in situations where he is known as the quarterback of the football team.

A lineman gets a similar kind of boost, but lesser, and he also starts off further down the scale. Most linemen are fat because it helps them do their job. He starts at a personal respect of 2. He’s on the team, but he’s not as integral as the quarterback so only 3 points of the team’s overall respect are conferred upon him for a total of 5 in situations where he is recognized as a member of the football team. Even so–and this is the point–the fat, known lineman’s rating of 5 is more than twice as good as 2, and is even better than the fit, unknown quarterback’s rating of 4.

RPG groups function in the same way, only with lower numbers. You can learn social dynamics in a RPG group even though the social aptitude of the people is likely to start at less. As one YouTuber put it: “D&D is the most fun you can have with your brain.” There is no end to the skills and knowledge which can be applied to a RPG; writing, drawing, tactics, strategy, acting, history, conflict resolution, math, abstract thinking… And like sportsball, RPGs are a social performance activity, and even though the activity itself is done by “dweebs“, there are residual respect effects conveyed upon members of the group if the members of the group known are known as a group; even if the group’s specific activity is hidden… a secret which I might recommend in the case of RPGs.

You aren’t in control of what is cool, but even activities which are less cool can provide benefits. Five dudes hanging out to discuss their RPG is only going to attract a few nerdy girls, but it attracts girls at all it’s because there is a group. (Yes, there are girls out there who want to invade RPG groups. If you don’t like sports: Marry one of those.) And the gamemaster is going to get a greater share of the overall respect (PR 1 + GR 2) than a player (PR 1 + GR 1). A lone guy reading a RPG book or planning a campaign isn’t going to attract even one girl; hardly ever, because he remains a 1. As dorky as RPGs might be, 2 is twice as good as 1.

My example answers to the surveys were my actual answers. I played baseball (I was good.) and basketball (I was terrible.), medaled gold and bronze on the Academic Decathlon team, and played RPGs at least once every two weeks with my friends…and we never–ever!–told anyone–especially girls!–that we played D&D.

We all played sports and went to parties and absolutely ruled the sand volleyball courts at the park. We never discussed D&D at school. We were not the trench-coat-n-fedora guy muttering over a rulebook in the cafeteria during lunch.

The main thing is we were seen as a team of friends who respected each other and that group dynamic attracted girls. At the same time: We didn’t shoot our own wheels off by telling the unprivileged about our nerdy activities. (I didn’t talk about Aca-Dec much, either.) Later, as girls became girlfriends only then would we nonchalantly let it be known in an organic situation. “Hey babe. Yeah, I can’t go tonight. Me and some guys are going to hang out, watch a movie, and maybe play some D&D.” 


[1] I prefer respect to status because the latter has a rhetorical effect in that it conjures up rankings in a way that can mislead. A commissioned officer has more status than a noncommissioned officer, but he doesn’t necessarily have more respect. A king has ultimate status in the kingdom, but a respected general can usurp him.

[2] Professional sports as practiced in the the US perverts team sports into something close to a zero-sum game because of the amount of money involved, and because of formal sports journalism.